62 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 28,036 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
  2. Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't

    523 U.S. 83 (1998)   Cited 10,820 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits
  3. Davis v. U.S.

    564 U.S. 229 (2011)   Cited 2,254 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[police] searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule"
  4. Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno

    547 U.S. 332 (2006)   Cited 2,681 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an injury a plaintiff "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally" is not a cognizable injury-in-fact
  5. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 11,925 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
  6. United States v. Salerno

    481 U.S. 739 (1987)   Cited 5,442 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"
  7. Allen v. Wright

    468 U.S. 737 (1984)   Cited 4,778 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, even when plaintiffs allege "one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system," it's not justiciable where "the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing"
  8. Wash. State Grange v. Wa. State Repub. Party

    552 U.S. 442 (2008)   Cited 1,259 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should neither "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it" nor "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied"
  9. City of Boerne v. Flores

    521 U.S. 507 (1997)   Cited 1,803 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that RFRA is unconstitutional in so far as it permits suits against state actors
  10. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.

    429 U.S. 252 (1977)   Cited 4,304 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs need show only that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision," because, after all, "[r]arely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one."
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,861 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 1973 - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 1973   Cited 1,593 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no change in voting takes effect until precleared
  13. Section 1973c - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 1973c   Cited 894 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth the requirements of § 5
  14. Section 1973b - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 1973b   Cited 256 times
    Specifying jurisdictions where § 5 applies
  15. Section 1973a - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 1973a   Cited 80 times
    Providing that the court need not authorize the appointment of observers if any incidents of denial or abridgement were few in number, corrected promptly and effectively, lack a continuing effect, and lack a reasonable probability of recurrence
  16. Section 51.54 - Discriminatory purpose and effect

    28 C.F.R. § 51.54   Cited 18 times
    Providing that the last "legally enforceable" plan is the benchmark plan for purposes of measuring retrogression
  17. Section 51.59 - Redistricting plans

    28 C.F.R. § 51.59   Cited 2 times
    Providing that “ jurisdiction's failure to adopt the maximum possible number of majority-minority districts may not be the sole basis for determining that a jurisdiction was motivated by a discriminatory purpose”